The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony
Baldry) : It may be helpful if I set out the Government's approach to
the Bill.

Water is a precious commodity. It is essential to life, health and hygiene.
We all want high standards of drinking water quality, clean beaches, safe
bathing waters and effective systems of sewage disposal. Continuously
raising such water standards involves continuing investment of further
money.

At the privatisation of the water industry we invested £1,572 million
in a green dowry for water services. Since privatisation, the water
companies have invested a further £3 billion, on average, each year in
improving water quality and striving to meet tough environmental targets.
Such investment is massive. It works out at approximately £8 million
each day, £5,000 every minute and £960 per household in the five
years to 1995.

North West Water alone, which supplies water to the constituency of the
right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the promoter of the Bill,
invested almost £500 million in improvements last year and, on
average, £189 was spent on each customer's property. It is planning to
spend £150 million on the Fleetwood Marsh waste water treatment plant,
which will clean up the Blackpool and Fylde coasts, and £400 million
on improving the bathing waters of the north-west, again including
Blackpool. Those are substantial sums of money. That essential investment
in improving water standards is unparalleled in our history, and what a
contrast it is with the previous Labour Government, who cut their spending
on the water industry generally by 30 per cent. and specifically cut their
capital investment on sewage treatment by 50 per cent.

Such investment must be paid for and it is fair and reasonable that water
customers overall should meet such costs. We have ensured that a regulator,
the Director General of Water Services--Ofwat--is in place to help ensure a
proper balance between continued and further environmental improvement, and
manageable bills.

It is important to get water bills into perspective. Those who seek to be
alarmist tend to quote percentage increases without referring to actual
costs. That happened this morning when the right hon. Member for Salford,
East referred to percentage increases without mentioning the actual cost of
water. It is important to make that clear. The average cost of water to the
average household in England is about 51p a day--less than the cost of a
bottle of fizzy water. That is a reasonable sum to enable the water
companies to ensure high standards.

Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South) : How much of that 51p a day goes
into the water companies' profits?

Mr. Baldry : The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been listening. I
made it clear that the water companies have been investing substantial sums
in water infrastructure. It would be impossible for them to make that
investment if they were losing money. We all know what happened to the
water industry when it was a nationalised industry and at the behest of
Treasury external financing limits. In 1976, all investment in capital
spending in the water industry was cut overnight.

Whatever the level of water charges to customers, some people will have
difficulty in meeting the bill and some simply will not pay. The Bill deals
with the treatment of

Column 622

such customers. We consider it right that
customers should be expected to pay their bills. That is not a new concept.
To hear some hon. Members speak today, one would think that the concept was
either new or had been introduced since privatisation.

The framework for regulating the water industry in terms of disconnections
is exactly the same as it has been since the Water Act 1945, which came
into effect under a Labour Government. Under that legislation, water
undertakers in England and Wales had access to provisions to disconnect a
water supply for non-payment. As there seems to be some misunderstanding
about that, I quote from the relevant legislation. It states :

"where a person fails to pay within seven days after a demand therefor any
instalment of a water rate payable by him in respect of any premises, the
undertaker may cut off the supply of water to the premises and recover the
expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing".

So the provisions for the disconnection of water are not new. They go back
almost half a century. Such a power is still necessary as an ultimate
sanction against those who can but will not pay. Equally, those who have
difficulty in paying should be given every assistance to enable them to do
so.

To hear Opposition Members speak, one would think that disconnection was
instant upon non-payment following receipt of a bill. That is far from the
truth. The procedures involved are quite protracted, involving written
communication with the customer and lasting, on avergae, some six months.
Typically, customers receive a bill with details of what to do if they
cannot pay. They then receive a reminder that the bill has not been paid
and, subsequently, a notice of the company's intention to issue a summons
and warning of the additional costs that the customer will thus incur. That
is followed by a visit and/or a solicitor's letter, an attempt to negotiate
payment arrangments and, where no arrangement is entered into, the
subsequent issue of a summons.

If payment is still not received, an application is made to the court for a
judgment order. The customer is then notified that the company has received
an order and that payment must be made to avoid disconnection. Finally, if
all else has failed, a disconnection notice is delivered by hand and, after
further attempts to seek agreement over payment arrangements, a visit is
made to disconnect the water supply. Even at this late stage, the company
will still negotiate a payment arrangement if the customer is willing. All
of that takes a very considerable period--on average, about six months. The
Water Act 1989 built on the statutory framework of the 1945 Act and
strengthened safeguards for customers. A number of the provisions
introduced then were specifically designed to meet the concerns voiced at
the time by consumer representative bodies. The result was a much more
demanding legislative regime on disconnection for non-payment and a more
comprehensive code of practice, enforceable by the Director General of
Water Services, as part of water companies' licences. That was far more
demanding than anything previously experienced or enjoyed by the water
consumer or required--

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : On a point of
order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that if the Minister had
terminated his remarks after seven and a half minutes and then sat down,
there being no other hon.

Column 623

Members wishing to contribute to the debate
and rising in their places, we could have proceeded to a decision on Second
Reading?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : That is hypothetical.
We do not speculate like that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

(i) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in
the name of Mr. Secretary Hurd relating to European Communities not later
than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the
first such Motion ;

(ii) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions
in the names of Mr. Secretary Howard relating to Representation of the
People and of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to Representation of
the People and Northern Ireland not later than one and a half hours after
the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion ; and

(iii) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions
in the name of Mr. Secretary Lang relating to Local Government (Scotland)
not later than half-past Eleven o'clock ; and (2) at the sitting on Monday
7th March, put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the
Motion in the name of Mr. Anthony Nelson relating to Building Societies not
later than one and a half hours after their commencement ;

and the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the
expiry of time for opposed business.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Column 625

Hostel Closure (Sydenham)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--
[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

2.31 pm

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West) : I am grateful for the opportunity to
speak about this important facility for young homeless people which is
located in Lewisham, West, although its importance stretches far wider. I
am not sure what mystical processes allocate Adjournment debates, but I am
grateful for having been granted this opportunity, at relatively short
notice. I shall try to remain temperate in my language, although I come
here today feeling a mixture of anger and sorrow at the prospect that the
Lawrie Park road hostel for young homeless will close. It is to close
because of the deliberate actions of the Department of the Environment.

I have raised the matter in the House on previous occasions, including the
Consolidated Fund debate in July 1992. I have met the Minister for Housing,
Inner Cities and Construction on a number of occasions and I have written
on far more occasions. I am pessimistic, to put it mildly, about what is
likely to emerge from today's debate, given the fact that the Minister with
whom I have been dealing all this time is not here today. Doubtless his
precious time is occupied elsewhere. This does not bode well for the
response that I am likely to get. I rise with a heavy heart because the
attitude of the Department to date has been one of simple-minded repetition
of current Government policy without any recognition of the project's
value, not just to the young people whom it serves, but a far wider
community in London.

I am extremely angry and sorry that what is likely to emerge from the
business is the irrecoverable loss of an extremely valuable asset. The
circumstances, efforts and commitment that produced the hostel are unlikely
to be replicated, so my speech is probably, to that extent, a swan song. I
am determined that the valuable asset of the Lawrie Park hostel should not

"go gentle into that good night"

if it is to be consigned to the dustbin by the Government. The hostel is
designed for 16 to 25-year-old single, homeless people off the streets,
predominantly in central London. It suffers the misfortune of being located
on the borders of my constituency in the London borough of Lewisham and
Bromley. It is an extremely desirable location, with a few trees and grass
around it, unlike the normal surroundings associated with short-term direct
access hostels for the homeless in London.

The hostel is purpose-built accommodation, not a draughty church hall. It
was originally a management training centre and is still owned by the
National Westminster bank. The accommodation is of a remarkably high
standard compared with what young, single homeless people in London
normally have to put up with. To some degree, those high standards have
proved its downfall. It offers experiences and opportunities denied to many
of London's homeless young people, but it is likely to close for good.

The hostel originally opened in December 1991 under the Government's former
cold weather shelter scheme. It was funded until March 1992. The funding
was, unsurprisingly, extended to the end of May 1992 and then for a couple
of weeks into June. It does not take a genius to realise that a general
election took place between March

Column 626

and June 1992. The last outstanding demand
of the chartists is that there should be annual elections. If the net
effect of that would mean that the Government's generosity and largesse was
displayed every year, I would support that demand. I have no doubt that the
election was a fundamental factor in keeping the project open. The hostel
obtained funding by various means through the summer of 1992--principally
through the efforts of the South London Housing Family Association, which
strove commendably to maintain that important resource until it qualified
for cold weather payments in the winter of 1992-93. I met the Minister on
various occasions during 1992 to ensure that that valuable resource was not
lost. In the middle of last year, a revised rough sleepers initiative
strategy document was published. I have no doubt that the Lawrie Park
hostel not only meets every criteria in that document, but exceeds by a
wide margin the minimum requirements.

The hostel's greatest failing is that it is not located in central London.
Even though it draws the overwhelming majority of its residents from
central London, the fact that it is located in south-east London means that
it does not qualify. I have no doubt that the hostel meets those funding
criteria as well as those of the Housing Corporation. It met every
criterion, but, because the Government were seeking to reduce the amount of
money available for the rough sleepers initiative as another post-election
cut, the hostel's funding for the winter of 1993-94 was eliminated. The
young people, particularly those of south London, have to pay for the
Government's cut through the closure of the hostel. I shall demonstrate how
the elimination of the hostel's funding has been crucial to the sad and
deeply hurtful decision to close the project. The hostel was funded in part
by close co-operation with the London borough of Lewisham. The South London
Family Housing Association has invested about £250,000 in the two
years that it has existed. Unfortunately, that is a burden that it can no
longer carry. Revenue funding is crucial to the project. Approaches to the
Housing Corporation seem to show that capital funding for the acquisition
of the building and its institution as a permanent project is likely. I
have already mentioned the determination that the South London Family
Housing Association has shown, with its energy and drive. It has devised a
comprehensive project, utilising many agencies, groups and energies to
provide an opportunity for some of the most vulnerable young people in our
society, save for the support of the Department of the Environment and the
critical revenue funding that has not been forthcoming. I believe that all
that will be wasted in future. As I mentioned, it will be impossible to
recreate and will all have been for nothing.

Although many will have benefited in the past two years, those who come
after them will be left to fight for a place somewhere on the streets of
London. I can do no better than quote from a couple of letters from the
managing director of the South London Family Housing Association. When I
was first notified of the impending closure of the hostel, he said :

"With several other direct access hostels and short term provision also
closing this Spring, I can foresee single homelessness reappearing in the
street in a significant way. The Government must provide some better
sources of revenue support."

In the few moments that I have left, I can read only part of a further
letter in which he said :

Column 627

"In total we estimate that up to 500 people
have passed through the hostel. Recently the hostel has come under
increasing pressure from homeless young people and has been absolutely full
--55 young people--since early January."--

There are equal numbers of young men and women. While all young people who
are forced to live on the streets of London are vulnerable, young women
must be the most vulnerable group of all. That hostel has provided equally
for young men and women.

"We have secured a lot of local support for our volunteers and a number of
local schools, among them Dulwich College, are preparing to make links and
raise some funds for us. We had also made plans for linking the hostel (as
far as Lewisham people are concerned) with a Foyer' in Sydenham Road,
opposite the library, which would provide a place residents could have
moved on to and take a suitable training course, probably at Lewisham
College on a Training for Work scheme." The most important features of the
project have been : "half of all the single homeless in London are from
London itself and the best way to provide for them is with direct access
hostels near to where they have some connections rather than forcing them
into the West End because there is no local provision we were able to show
that local boroughs will join together to tackle this problem despite tight
budgets : Lewisham (and to an extent Bromley) were especially supportive.
Given more time and some more matching funds, Southwark, Lambeth and
Croydon might have joined in. The problem with running direct access
hostels is that there is simply no one source of funding to turn to. For
Lawrie Park, SLFHA and Centrepoint secured funds from London Boroughs
Grants Unit, the London Housing Foundation, Tudor Trust, LB Lewisham, LB
Lambeth, LB Southwark and potentially from the Housing Corporation. All of
these took time and effort to secure--and we remain £120,000 short of
the annual sum we need to staff the hostel with 2 staff on duty at all
times ... Meanwhile SLFHA itself has put in £250,000 to keep the
hostel open. The Government must provide some simpler route for revenue
funding for direct access hostels of this kind, outside central London,
otherwise it is simply impossible to make them happen."

I briefly draw the Minister's attention to the early-day motion on the
rough sleepers initiative, which indicates that it has been successful so
far as it goes, but the problem of young homelessness is not restricted to
central London ; it exists not only in outer London and the part of inner
London that I represent, but in every city. If all that the Government can
do is concentrate their efforts in the central London area, they will
create a magnet that will drag young people from all around the country to
the only place where they can get decent support.

A note was passed to me before I came into the Chamber to say that the
South London Family Housing Association, in connection with Centrepoint, is
organising a conference this September to discuss the problem of young
homelessness in south London, which has been occasioned particularly by the
impending closure of the Lawrie Park road hostel. I hope that the Minister
will make a commitment--if not on his own behalf, on behalf of his
Department--to attend the conference and discuss the problems that the
closure of the hostel will leave in south London.

As you can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have papers sent by numerous
organisations--by hostel residents, the Housing Corporation, the housing
departments of Lewisham, Bromley, Southwark and Lambeth, the London
Connection young homeless project, the Longstop project, Stopover Lewisham,
Centrepoint Soho, Shelter, the Mental Health Team single homeless project,
Letts house Croydon direct access hostel, Deptford centre, Shaftesbury
homeless project and numerous others. They all describe the insurmountable
difficulties that the closure of Lawrie Park road hostel would create for
homeless young people in south London.

Column 628

I appeal to the Minister. It is not too late
to provide the kind of support that such a valuable project needs. It must
not be allowed simply to wither on the vine. It has been said in another
context that, if someone is given a fish, he can be fed for a day, but if
he is taught to fish, he can be fed for life. That is what the hostel does
: it not only gets young homeless people off the streets, but it makes it
possible for them to stay off the streets. It has undertaken to perform
that task perhaps too well, and it continues to do so. If I did not
consider them to be totally incapable of shame, I would say that it was to
the Government's eternal shame that that work is to be frittered away and
wasted because of their short-sighted meanness. There will be victims of
the closure of the hostel ; hon. Members may not be able to put names to
them, but they will see them again on the streets of central London.

2.46 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony
Baldry) : I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd)for
raising the important question of the funding of local services for single
homeless people outside central London and for giving me the opportunity to
comment and to clarify a number of issues that are clearly being
misunderstood.

It is clearly important to recognise the valuable work that projects such
as the Lawrie Park road hostel in Sydenham can contribute to the relief of
homelessness among single people, but it is also important to recognise
that responsibility for all homelss people properly rests with local
housing authorities. Local authorities are in the best position to assess
local needs ; and each local authority is required, when drawing together
its housing strategy, to consider the needs of all homeless people within
its area, including the single homeless.

It is not for central Government to decide which local housing services
should be funded and in what way : indeed, I think that local authorities
would be rightly indignant if Ministers in Whitehall sought to tell them
how they should deliver every detail of their housing programmes, what
local housing should be funded and in what way it should be funded.

In central London, however, we recognised the particular problems of people
sleeping rough, to which it was reasonable for the Government to direct
extra help and resources. That we have done through the rough sleepers
initiative. The initiative is working alongside the voluntary and statutory
sectors, with the aim of proventing and relieving homelessness among single
people. We committed £96 million to the first phase of the initiative,
in 1990-93. As part of that, we funded the South London Family Housing
Association to run 50 bed spaces at the Lawrie Park road hostel during the
winters of 1991-92 and 1992-93. The funds were part of a programme to
provide shelter for people who might otherwise have slept rough in central
London during the winter months.

During the early stage of the rough sleepers initiative, we were unable to
confine all the cold weather projects that we funded to the centre of
London. Therefore, the net was widened to fund several schemes in the outer
London boroughs, one of which was the Lawrie Park road hostel. I understand
--and the hon. Gentleman has confirmed--

Column 629

that the South London Family Housing
Association kept the hostel open, using other sources of funds, during the
summer of 1992. The first phase of the rough sleepers initiative in central
London has been very successful in helping people--especially young people-
-to start a new life away from the streets. Independent research into the
first phase of the initiative, undertaken by Geoffrey Randall, has shown
that it has helped several thousand people to find accommodation and has
prevented many more from becoming homeless in the first place. The strategy
for the second phase of the rough sleepers initiative was published in June
last year after wide consultation with the voluntary and local authority
sectors. The strategy proposes an additional £86 million funding
available for three years to 1996 to build on the success of the original
rough sleepers initiative. It is to be targeted on central London, where
many rough sleepers remain concentrated.

SLFHA was well aware, and has been aware for some time, that its winter
shelter funding would end in March last year and that, being located in
Lewisham, several miles from central London, there was scant prospect of
further RSI funding being directed towards Lawrie Park road. I think that
that had been made clear to it on many occasions. SLFHA has kept the hostel
open since last March, when Government funding ended, using its own
resources.

I understand that SLFHA has, rightly, approached five neighbouring London
local authorities, Lewisham, Bromley, Lambeth, Southwark and Croydon--
because, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said, that hostel is located
on the border of a number of London boroughs--with a view to working in
partnership, with each borough contributing a share of the revenue costs
needed to operate the Lawrie Park road hostel in future years.
Unfortunately, only two authorities--Lewisham and Bromley--have agreed to
that request. That is obviously most disappointing.

It is understandable that Lewisham borough council is unwilling to meet
alone the full cost of the Lawrie Park road hostel if neighbouring
authorities benefit freely from the services on offer by having that
facility on their doorstep. It is to the mutual advantage of all the
neighbouring boroughs that that facility exists to help people in their
boroughs. They may have withheld funding in the hope that the Government
might be persuaded to fund the hostel directly, but, for the reasons that I
have set out, we do not see it as appropriate that we should do so and now,
knowing that, those boroughs may review their previous decision.

Moreover, those five London boroughs' decisions not to fund the Lawrie Park
road hostel should be put in the context that, in the financial year 1994-
95, those five local authorities between them have been allocated a total
of more than £93 million in grants under the Department's housing
investment programme. I am surprised that, between them, the local
authorities could not put together a proper "rescue package"--a proper
package for Lawrie Park road hostel to maintain and sustain its revenue
costs.

Having failed to secure sufficient long-term funding from the local
authorities or other charitable sources, SLFHA has decided that it has no
option but to close

Column 630

Lawrie Park road hostel. I am sure that such
a decision has been taken reluctantly, but obviously that is a decision for
the association and it alone.

The number of people sleeping rough in central London continues to decline.
From voluntary sector estimates of more than 1,000 before the RSI began in
1990, it had declined from that peak to 287 in a count undertaken last
November by Homeless Network--an umbrella group representing 20 voluntary
organisations in central London. Of those 287 people, only three were aged
under 18. Fewer than 40 others were aged between 18 and 25. The vast
majority, therefore--about 240--were aged more than 25. Since that count
was taken, we have opened up 350 bed spaces in seven cold weather shelters
throughout central London. Those shelters are open from 1 December to 31
March and provide free, direct access and basic accommodation during the
cold winter months. Up to 250 further places are available in the event of
especially severe weather. Those emergency beds have been called into
service on four occasions this winter, but no more than 55 places have ever
been occupied on any one night.

Voluntary street-level agencies being funded under the rough sleepers
initiative in central London have told us that they are able to make early
contact with newly street homeless young people who are almost always
willing to take up offers of accommodation. The rough sleepers initiative
is continuing to make temporary hostel places available specifically for
young people under the extended initivative. These people then have access
to some 3,300 units of permanent new accommodation being developed under
the initiative. The voluntary agencies who work to resettle people
currently in RSI temporary accommodation are encouraged to look not merely
to the RSI-funded permanent accommodation but to the public or private
sectors and housing associations.

Mr. Dowd : Is it the thrust of the Government's message that young
homeless people--not only from around London but from across the country--
should come to central London?

Mr. Baldry : The thrust of the Government's message is that there is
a duty on the borough of Lewisham and its neighbours to meet the needs of
the homeless in those boroughs. They are given considerable funds to enable
them to do so. It is no good the hon. Gentleman brandishing wodges of paper
from various London boroughs, all of which--with the exception of the two
that I mentioned--have refused to support the Lawrie Park road hostel. If
the hostel is doing such good work--as the hon. Gentleman suggests--I
should have thought that the directors of housing and the housing
committees of the boroughs involved would have had no difficulty in making
a contribution between them towards the revenue costs of the hostel.

All the substantial RSI funds are now fully committed. If we were to accede
to further demands to fund additional hostel places, it could only be at
the expense of some of the planned 3,300 permanent developments and the key
element of the programme is to ensure that people can move on from sleeping
rough on the streets and into permanent accommodation.

Furthermore, some 950 places in temporary hostel accommodation will have
been phased out by the end of the initiative in March 1996. In most cases,
the closure of

Column 631

the temporary hostels is outside our control
because the leases on the buildings are due to end or the sites are being
redeveloped. As part of the extended initiative, some resources are being
targeted on five zones in central London, such as the Strand/west end and
the bull ring at Waterloo, where there are large remaining concentrations
of people sleeping rough. In those zones, consortia have been set up with
representatives of the voluntary sector, local authority housing and social
services departments, the police, local health service providers and the
local business community to co-operate in pursuing common aims and
objectives to relieve street homelessness in a given geographical area.

In particular, I greatly welcome the active involvement in the consortia of
four local authorities--Camden, Lambeth, Westminster and the City of London
corporation. It is encouraging that the services offered by specialist care
providers are being integrated with the street-level work being funded
under the rough sleepers initiative. Partnerships between local authorities
to meet a particular problem are not novel. They happen all over the
country and there is no reason why there should not have been such a
partnership to continue the work of Lawrie Park road hostel.

There are already encouraging signs that the co-ordinated approach of the
rough sleepers initiative is producing real benefits. For instance, in
several of the consortia the local authority housing department has offered
some of its own housing stock or its nomination rights into housing
association properties for the benefit of all rough sleepers in central
London.

The key to the success of the consortia is the additional resources from
member organisations. Central Government input is, therefore, just one
element of the resources on offer. In addition, the voluntary agencies in
central London are running a consortium in a sixth zone--in the
Paddington/Marylebone area--without any targeted resources from us. It is a
splendid example of how organisations can co-operate to maximise the impact
of the resources available. I hope that agencies outside central London
will use the rough sleepers initiative as a model of how to co-ordinate the
input of all voluntary and statutory bodies and local authorities involved
in helping single people who are

Column 632

sleeping rough or who are in immediate
danger of doing so. A consortium of south-east London agencies might have
highlighted the issue of the Lawrie Park road hostel earlier and have been
better able to focus attention on the need for local authorities to inject
modest cash sums to keep the project afloat.

I trust that the South London Family Housing Association will manage the
phasing out of the Lawrie Park road hostel

professionally--that is, unless the boroughs concerned are not prepared to
come forward even at this last moment and work in partnership to protect
and take the hostel forward. If they do not do that, I am sure that the
South London Family Housing Association will want to assist those people
still living there to find alternative accommodation before the hostel
closes. Clearly, Lawrie Park road is not the only hostel catering
specifically for young people in that part of the capital.

It is clear that the rough sleepers initiative is continuing to make a
significant impact on the issue of people sleeping rough in central London.
By March 1996, around 5,000 places will have been provided in a variety of
permanent and temporary accommodation solutions and thousands of people who
would otherwise have slept rough will have been helped to find a new home.
The number of people sleeping rough in the very heart of our capital city
continues to decline and we are funding considerable outreach and
resettlement effort to assist those who remain to start a more settled life
away from the streets.

I am confident that the consortia of voluntary and statutory agencies
established under the rough sleepers initiative, along with local
authorities, will provide the basis of a structure that will continue to
direct help to single homeless people in central London for many years to
come. I hope that local authorities in other parts of the country will look
at what we have achieved by working together in central London and that
voluntary and statutory agencies will work together in south-east London,
as in other parts of the country, to meet the needs of all homeless people,
whether they be young single people or--

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock and the debate
having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- adjourned the House
without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.